Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time

Since we had so much fun with the 100 Greatest Artists of All Time, I thought I'd post another list, the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time:

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/500-greatest-albums-of-all-time-19691231/sgt-peppers-lonely-hearts-club-band-the-beatles-19691231

I definitely haven't listened to all the albums in this list, or even most of them (I've heard maybe a 100 of them; whoever says that they've heard all 500 is lying), but it seems solid enough.

I'll comment as far as my favorite artists are concerned (since this a huge **** list):

They got all of the important Stones albums, but although The Beatles are my favorite band, I feel too many of the early albums were in the list. Really, the only albums I would have put on there are: Rubber Soul, Revolver (my favorite Beatles album), Sgt. Pepper, White Album, Abbey Road and maybe Let It Be or Magical Mystery Tour. Albums like "Help," "Please Please Me" or "With the Beatles" are a bit of a stretch to me since The Beatles were mostly a singles band back then and the albums reflect that.

Also, while I understand why Sgt. Pepper is number one, I think pretty much all their other great albums are better, except for Let It Be, which IMO, straddles the line between greatness and non-greatness. Stg. Pepper is kitschy compared to Revolver, which does the psychedelic thing with more grace.

Imagine is not a good choice as far as solo Beatle's work is concerned. It has some classic songs on it, but the album as a whole doesn't really hang together, and it's badly recorded. Plastic Ono Band was a far better choice. Plastic Ono Band, Band on the Run, and All Things Must Pass are the only solo Beatles albums that deserved to be on that list IMO. Alot of their solo music was really bad.

As far as Outkast is concerned, I'd rather see Aquemini on the list than Stankonia (Aquemini is a much better record), but it's not a big deal.

They nailed Prince's best albums: Dirty Mind was his best early album, 1999 is one of the greatest pop-funk albums ever, Purple Rain is one of the best pop-funk-rock albums ever, and Sign of the Times is one of the greatest pop-funk-rock-soul albums ever.

Their Madonna choices are pretty much the only choices that make sense: Ray of Light (one of the greatest pop records ever, the lush mystical soundscapes are absolutely beautiful), Like A Prayer (Rolling Stone rightfully called it "as close to art as pop music gets), and The Immaculate Collection (easily one of the most important compilation of pop songs ever, every song is a pop masterpiece). "Music" being on the there doesn't make quite as much sense, but it is one of the most sonically inventive pop albums I've heard, so I'm cool with it.

BTW, the top 10 is extremely solid.

I'm going to get tons of flak for this, but there has never been an album as overrated as Thriller.

I'm going to get tons of flak for this, but there has never been an album as overrated as Thriller.

GreySeal9

You won't be getting any flak from me. I agree.

The top 5 I agree with (the top 2 are indisputable).

they don't really enjoy Cyndi's voice so it puzzles me but I won't complain.MistressMinako

Going through the list at first I thought I wouldn't have any. Saw a Clash album on there was like okay maybe there is something. Whitney's self titled album I loved so I am excited it was on there. Same with a Lauryn Hill album. As much as I liked No Doubt and Janet, I would have never picked those albums. Later I saw Tragic Kingdom by No Doubt so that sounds a bit better. I loved Stankonia by Outkast so I guess I thought it was deserved but I can see another being there instead. Wow.. can't believe a TLC album made the list.. CrazySexyCool I would have never guessed. Oh.. I really really did not expect She's So Unusual, one of my favorite albums of all time to be on there. Why? Well, to many people... they don't really enjoy Cyndi's voice so it puzzles me but I won't complain.MistressMinako

I didn't expect CrazySexCool at all, but it's a great pop/R&B album.

Lauper's voice is an acquired taste, but she can outsing almost anybody in pop. Check this out (you might have heard it tho): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhRTUbv5J_Q&ob=av2n

I did expect She's So Unusual tho. It has two of the most important pop songs on it and also has other good material.

Cyndi Lauper ftw. Even if she's only at 494, that's such an epic album. I won't even bother with the rest of the list. Waaaaay too long for me and I'll just get mad at their choices. :P

Cyndi Lauper ftw. Even if she's only at 494, that's such an epic album. I won't even bother with the rest of the list. Waaaaay too long for me and I'll just get mad at their choices. :P

DaBlastaMasta

It is one hell of a list. I think I spent half an hour scrolling through that.

I love list tho, and I don't have anything better to do. Well, actually I do, but that something better to do is homework. :P

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I'm going to get tons of flak for this, but there has never been an album as overrated as Thriller.

JML897

You won't be getting any flak from me. I agree.

It's nice to see somebody actually agree with me on this. Yeah, the album has some great singles, but so do alot of albums.

If anyone wants, here's an easier version to look through. It's just one long text list so you don't have to go through the annoying slideshow.

http://www.archer2000.net/sbs/awardsrs500.html

No Origin of Symmetry? :cry: But i must say, i dont like how Nevermind was put so high up and in utero was all the way in the late 400's. Both are amazing albums, but in utero shouldn't be that low....kris9031998

I wonder if these lists would be better if they didn't order them.

[QUOTE="MistressMinako"] they don't really enjoy Cyndi's voice so it puzzles me but I won't complain.MarioRPGer

The top 5 I agree with (the top 2 are indisputable).

Pirate700

Yeah, Sgt. Pepper is indisputably important (it did a hell of alot for the art of album recording), but I'll take Revolver over it any day of the week. :P

If anyone wants, here's an easier version to look through. It's just one long text list so you don't have to go through the annoying slideshow.

http://www.archer2000.net/sbs/awardsrs500.html

JML897

Thanks. That's very helpful.

[QUOTE="MistressMinako"]Going through the list at first I thought I wouldn't have any. Saw a Clash album on there was like okay maybe there is something. Whitney's self titled album I loved so I am excited it was on there. Same with a Lauryn Hill album. As much as I liked No Doubt and Janet, I would have never picked those albums. Later I saw Tragic Kingdom by No Doubt so that sounds a bit better. I loved Stankonia by Outkast so I guess I thought it was deserved but I can see another being there instead. Wow.. can't believe a TLC album made the list.. CrazySexyCool I would have never guessed. Oh.. I really really did not expect She's So Unusual, one of my favorite albums of all time to be on there. Why? Well, to many people... they don't really enjoy Cyndi's voice so it puzzles me but I won't complain.GreySeal9

I didn't expect CrazySexCool at all, but it's a great pop/R&B album.

Lauper's voice is an acquired taste, but she can outsing almost anybody in pop. Check this out (you might have heard it tho): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhRTUbv5J_Q&ob=av2n

I did expect She's So Unusual tho. It has two of the most important pop songs on it and also has other good material.

Oh look, another Rolling Stone music list I don't agree with in the slightest.

The Beatles (setting aside their influence) are one of the most overrated bands in history.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I'm going to get tons of flak for this, but there has never been an album as overrated as Thriller.

You won't be getting any flak from me. I agree.

Dark side of the moon at 43? yah ok :lol:

[QUOTE="JML897"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I'm going to get tons of flak for this, but there has never been an album as overrated as Thriller.

gaming25

You won't be getting any flak from me. I agree.

I'm not disputing that it's really popular.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I'm going to get tons of flak for this, but there has never been an album as overrated as Thriller.

You won't be getting any flak from me. I agree.

Imo Pet Sounds is better than Sgt. Peppers, but it is an otherwise solid list from what i've saw.

[QUOTE="JML897"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I'm going to get tons of flak for this, but there has never been an album as overrated as Thriller.

gaming25

You won't be getting any flak from me. I agree.

I don't think having alot of hits neccesarily makes an album better than others.

But anyway, IMO:

1. Wanna Be Starting Something-great song

2. Baby Be Mine-sounds decent, but not very memorable

3. The Girl Is Mine-corny schmaltz. One of the most unappealing songs that Jackson ever made.

4. Thriller-I think this is a hell of an overrated song and the "rap" is awful, but I guess it's a great single nonetheless

5. Beat It-great song

6. Billie Jean-great song

10. Human Nature-beautiful song

11. PYT-really good song, but nothing mindblowing

12. The Lady in My Life-sounds fine, but is fairly generic

On a song by song basis, it's a high quality album, but I think there are way better pop songs out there than the album's best, and to me, it just comes across as a collection of songs and doesn't have much of a running musical/lyrical theme or vision. The best songs work just as well on a greatest hits compilation as they do on the album.

Dark side of the moon at 43? yah ok :lol:

deathtarget04

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. Also, no Animals? What a joke.

There's also a really slim amount of jazz on there. Mostly just Miles and Coltrane. No Mingus or Ellington?

Really? Basically every Beatles album ever in the top 10? How sadly predictable. And really? Kind of Blue? It's superb but....definitely would have put On the Corner or B***** Brew above it.majoras_wrath

I do think there are too many Beatles albums in the list, and I say that as a mega Beatles fan.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]Really? Basically every Beatles album ever in the top 10? How sadly predictable. And really? Kind of Blue? It's superb but....definitely would have put On the Corner or B***** Brew above it.GreySeal9

I do think there are too many Beatles albums in the list, and I say that a mega Beatles fan.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]Really? Basically every Beatles album ever in the top 10? How sadly predictable. And really? Kind of Blue? It's superb but....definitely would have put On the Corner or B***** Brew above it.majoras_wrath

I do think there are too many Beatles albums in the list, and I say that a mega Beatles fan.

I basically agree (not on OK Computer being #1, tho it is an hell of a great album). I mean, The Beatles have an crazy number of great songs in their catalogue, but album-wise, they are great, but it's not like anybody else can't **** with them. And putting some of those early albums in there just makes them come off as out of control Beatles fanboys.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]Really? Basically every Beatles album ever in the top 10? How sadly predictable. And really? Kind of Blue? It's superb but....definitely would have put On the Corner or B***** Brew above it.majoras_wrath

I do think there are too many Beatles albums in the list, and I say that a mega Beatles fan.

I think The Bends is better than Kid A, but I agree about OK Computer.

Oh look, another Rolling Stone music list I don't agree with in the slightest.

The Beatles (setting aside their influence) are one of the most overrated bands in history.

chessmaster1989

This I fully agree with. The Beatles were too "poppy" if you ask me, rather than a rock band. Other bands like The Rolling Stones, The Who, and Led Zeppelin perfected and shaped the rock genre to its true form.

On a sidenote: I love the album title "All Killer, No Filler".

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Oh look, another Rolling Stone music list I don't agree with in the slightest.

The Beatles (setting aside their influence) are one of the most overrated bands in history.

xdude85

This I fully agree with. The Beatles were too "poppy" if you ask me, rather than a rock band. Other bands like The Rolling Stones, The Who, and Led Zeppelin perfected and shaped the rock genre to its true form.

I don't really get this comment. Yes, The Beatles, as a whole, are more poppy than The Stones, The Who, and Zepplin, but their music is pretty clearly rock.

There's also a really slim amount of jazz on there. Mostly just Miles and Coltrane. No Mingus or Ellington?Niff_T

Imo Pet Sounds is better than Sgt. Peppers, but it is an otherwise solid list from what i've saw.

Masculus

Pet Songs is stronger on a song-by-song basis (Sgt. Pepper has a few clunkers IMO, the song Good Morning Good Morning is straight up bad), but I think they put Sgt. Pepper as #1 because of its importance as far as studio craftmanship is concerned.

How much does "most influential" play into being one of the "greatest"? Because I know plenty of items, on both the greatest songs and albums lists, that haven't seemed to age particularly well, but were hugely influential in their heyday. Or maybe it's just my changing tastes.

Some of my faves are there but their all in the wrong places, and still many are missing. Idk, the whole list seems like a lot of undue Beatles hype to me imo.

For instance, most of the items on this list (as well as the song and artist list) seem skewed towards much older music. While I don't deny there are many among us that fondly think of older popular music as being significantly better (I still can't figure out why), this ignores so much of the music scene and instead draws unfair comparisons of well established classics with popular tunes of the present day. Even in terms of the classics (which could conceivably now include music as late as that of the early 1990s), the 1960s and 1970s gets a lot more representation than any other time period. This period, while hugely influential in the popular music scene (especially given the cultural phenomena that surrounded it), represents a relatively narrow focus in terms of groups, styles, and music enabling technology. It seems inconceivable that the music scene would be "dead" as far as quality goes, and that older music is all that should count.

That said, newer music may not have had as much time to sink in and make both a quality and cultural impact, and hence their disproportionate recognition on the list (or maybe that's just Rolling Stone's rating doctrine). Either way, the question still stands: is "great" in this context solely about quality, or is it a mixture between quality, influence, staying power, album integrity, creativeness, and everything else that makes up a great individual song and overall album? Like I said, I don't think a lot of items on any of their lists have aged well solely in terms of quality and lasting impact.

For instance, most of the items on this list (as well as the song and artist list) seem skewed towards much older music. While I don't deny there are many among us that fondly think of older popular music as being significantly better (I still can't figure out why), this ignores so much of the music scene and instead draws unfair comparisons of well established classics with popular tunes of the present day. Even in terms of the classics (which could conceivably now include music as late as that of the early 1990s), the 1960s and 1970s gets a lot more representation than any other time period. This period, while hugely influential in the popular music scene (especially given the cultural phenona that surrounded it), represents a relatively narrow focus in terms of groups, styles, and music enabling technology. It seems inconceivable that the music scene would be "dead" as far as quality goes, and that older music is all that should count.

That said, newer music may not have had as much time to sink in and make both a quality and cultural impact, and hence their disproportionate recognition on the list (or maybe that's just Rolling Stone's rating doctrine). Either way, the question still stands: is "great" in this context solely about quality, or is it a mixture between quality, influence, staying power, album integrity, creativeness, and everything else that makes up a great individual song and overall album?

jetpower3

It seems to me to be a mix of things, and different albums seem make the list with different combinations of those different things.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

For instance, most of the items on this list (as well as the song and artist list) seem skewed towards much older music. While I don't deny there are many among us that fondly think of older popular music as being significantly better (I still can't figure out why), this ignores so much of the music scene and instead draws unfair comparisons of well established classics with popular tunes of the present day. Even in terms of the classics (which could conceivably now include music as late as that of the early 1990s), the 1960s and 1970s gets a lot more representation than any other time period. This period, while hugely influential in the popular music scene (especially given the cultural phenona that surrounded it), represents a relatively narrow focus in terms of groups, styles, and music enabling technology. It seems inconceivable that the music scene would be "dead" as far as quality goes, and that older music is all that should count.

That said, newer music may not have had as much time to sink in and make both a quality and cultural impact, and hence their disproportionate recognition on the list (or maybe that's just Rolling Stone's rating doctrine). Either way, the question still stands: is "great" in this context solely about quality, or is it a mixture between quality, influence, staying power, album integrity, creativeness, and everything else that makes up a great individual song and overall album?

GreySeal9

It seems to me to be a mix of things, and different albums seem make the list with different combinations of those different things.

And that is one of the reasons that I have become increasingly skeptical of numbered "greatest" lists. Surely if different albums shine for different reasons, why try to compare them to one another in such a way? In what regard does Dark Side of the Moon (a remarkably well constructed and polished album - it is essentially all one song) compare to, say, The Beatles (meaning The White Album, which, while full of great songs, does not hold together as anything more than a mish mesh of different genres and styles)? Surely some albums can stand out from the rest in terms of both quality and influence (as well as all the other factors you might think of), but why would they be directly comparable, especially those that were made during different psychological and creative paradgims of what it means to be an album? For instance, music might be one day unrecognizable from its current form, and the current music we praise now laughable (although we will always appreciate its influence). Sgt. Pepper's might get credit for transforming this very definition, as well as popularizing the idea of the concept album (which transcends the actual music), but being the defining moment does not make one being the greatest. Album oriented rock is still relatively young, and as technology and ideas evolve, it might evolve into something never imagined by anyone. What sense does it make comparing albums of remarkedly different time periods when what we think of an album may no longer be true in, say, 2055? I still say influence (and maybe nostalgia) is a key factor on the creating of such lists, perhaps more so than the other factors.

[QUOTE="Masculus"]

Imo Pet Sounds is better than Sgt. Peppers, but it is an otherwise solid list from what i've saw.

GreySeal9

Pet Songs is stronger on a song-by-song basis (Sgt. Pepper has a few clunkers IMO, the song Good Morning Good Morning is straight up bad), but I think they put Sgt. Pepper as #1 because of its importance as far as studio craftmanship is concerned.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

For instance, most of the items on this list (as well as the song and artist list) seem skewed towards much older music. While I don't deny there are many among us that fondly think of older popular music as being significantly better (I still can't figure out why), this ignores so much of the music scene and instead draws unfair comparisons of well established classics with popular tunes of the present day. Even in terms of the classics (which could conceivably now include music as late as that of the early 1990s), the 1960s and 1970s gets a lot more representation than any other time period. This period, while hugely influential in the popular music scene (especially given the cultural phenona that surrounded it), represents a relatively narrow focus in terms of groups, styles, and music enabling technology. It seems inconceivable that the music scene would be "dead" as far as quality goes, and that older music is all that should count.

That said, newer music may not have had as much time to sink in and make both a quality and cultural impact, and hence their disproportionate recognition on the list (or maybe that's just Rolling Stone's rating doctrine). Either way, the question still stands: is "great" in this context solely about quality, or is it a mixture between quality, influence, staying power, album integrity, creativeness, and everything else that makes up a great individual song and overall album?

jetpower3

It seems to me to be a mix of things, and different albums seem make the list with different combinations of those different things.

And that is one of the reasons that I have become increasingly skeptical of numbered "greatest" lists. Surely if different albums shine for different reasons, why try to compare them to one another in such a way? In what regard does Dark Side of the Moon (a remarkably well constructed and polished album - it is essentially all one song) compare to, say, The Beatles (meaning The White Album, which, while full of great songs, does not hold together as anything more than a mish mesh of different genres and styles)? Surely some albums can stand out from the rest in terms of both quality and influence (as well as all the other factors you might think of), but why would they be directly comparable, especially those that were made during different psychological and creative paradgims of what it means to be an album? For instance, music might be one day unrecognizable from its current form, and the current music we praise now laughable (although we will always appreciate its influence). Sgt. Pepper's might get credit for transforming this very definition, as well as popularizing the idea of the concept album (which transcends the actual music), but being the defining moment does not make one being the greatest. Album oriented rock is still relatively young, and as technology and ideas evolve, it might evolve into something never imagined by anyone. What sense does it make comparing albums of remarkedly different time periods when what we think of an album may no longer be true in, say, 2055? I still say influence (and maybe nostalgia) is a key factor on the creating of such lists, perhaps more so than the other factors.

Would you like the list better if it wasn't ordered?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Masculus"]

Imo Pet Sounds is better than Sgt. Peppers, but it is an otherwise solid list from what i've saw.

Lockedge

Pet Songs is stronger on a song-by-song basis (Sgt. Pepper has a few clunkers IMO, the song Good Morning Good Morning is straight up bad), but I think they put Sgt. Pepper as #1 because of its importance as far as studio craftmanship is concerned.

Yeah, now that you mention it, I do seem to remember McCartney saying that Sgt. Pepper was influenced by Brian Wildson.

Four Beatles albums in the top ten is a huge stretch, IMO.Lockedge

Admittedly, The Beatles fanboyism is a little out of control in this list.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

It seems to me to be a mix of things, and different albums seem make the list with different combinations of those different things.

GreySeal9

And that is one of the reasons that I have become increasingly skeptical of numbered "greatest" lists. Surely if different albums shine for different reasons, why try to compare them to one another in such a way? In what regard does Dark Side of the Moon (a remarkably well constructed and polished album - it is essentially all one song) compare to, say, The Beatles (meaning The White Album, which, while full of great songs, does not hold together as anything more than a mish mesh of different genres and styles)? Surely some albums can stand out from the rest in terms of both quality and influence (as well as all the other factors you might think of), but why would they be directly comparable, especially those that were made during different psychological and creative paradgims of what it means to be an album? For instance, music might be one day unrecognizable from its current form, and the current music we praise now laughable (although we will always appreciate its influence). Sgt. Pepper's might get credit for transforming this very definition, as well as popularizing the idea of the concept album (which transcends the actual music), but being the defining moment does not make one being the greatest. Album oriented rock is still relatively young, and as technology and ideas evolve, it might evolve into something never imagined by anyone. What sense does it make comparing albums of remarkedly different time periods when what we think of an album may no longer be true in, say, 2055? I still say influence (and maybe nostalgia) is a key factor on the creating of such lists, perhaps more so than the other factors.

Would you like the list better if it wasn't ordered?

The more I think about it, the more I believe that recognizing albums/songs/artists for their respective contribution to each definable era and type of music (whatever the definitive measure is) in terms of quality, influence, and all other relevant factors would make a lot more sense than having an end all "greatest...of all time". "All time" in itself is a pretty silly statement, as time is constantly flowing and the entire list (and maybe even the concept) might look silly many, many years from now.